Urban Residents’ Attitude towards Migrant Workers：General Evaluation and Social Participation as the Influence Factors

——A Study Based on the Survey Data of Nanjing and Zhangjiagang

Liu Yujun

Department of Social Work and Social Administration

The University of Hong Kong

Abstract:

This research made use of the survey data of Nanjing and Zhangjiagang, analyzed

their local residents’ attitude towards migrant workers, and built the multiple liner

regression model with the theoretical perspective of social participation. As a result:

the attitude of local residents in Nanjing and Zhangjiagang is relatively good. They

recognized that “migrant workers’ tasks are dirty, heavy and dangerous which

citizens would not like to do”, “the economic development of cities cannot be

separated from migrant workers’ endeavor” and “migrant workers provide

convenience for citizens’ life” and so on. There are quite a few urban residents

agreed that migrant workers should have equal rights on children’s compulsory

education, employment, medical insurance, pension security and so on with local

residents in cities. Most of residents supported that migrant workers settle in the

city. Influence factors of urban residents’ attitude include years lived in the

community, community election participation and social group/organization

participation, and the effect of social group/organization participation is positive. This

research suggests that in order to promote the attitude transformation of urban

residents and migrant workers’ social integration, the social group/organization

participation may be a breakout.

Keywords: Urban Residents; Migrant Workers; Attitude; Social Participation.

Introduction

Since the 1980s, as Chinese urban economy continued to boom and the

modernization process accelerated incessantly, a large number of rural surplus labors

went into cities to seek employment. The 2013 National Survey Report of Migrant

Workers released in May 2014 by National Bureau of Statistic showed that the total

number of migrant workers in China has reached 268.94 million. The appearance of

the numerous migrant workers is one of the most remarkable and important changes

in modern China, and it is the research focus of social sciences at home and abroad.

After the migrant workers left their hometown, the city they worked is where they

lived. Thus there are several scholars focused on the relations between them and the

city they worked in recent years and analyzed from the perspective of social

integration (Zhang & Lei, 2008; Yang, 2009; Liu, 2010; Cui, 2012). The social

integration of migrant workers is a two-way interactive process, which includes two

subjects: migrant workers and urban residents. On one hand, migrant workers

recognize, adapt and integrate into the city finally. On the other hand, the urban

residents change the bias towards the migrant workers, eliminate estrangement,

tolerate and accept the migrant workers. Most of the existing studies were based on

the migrant workers’ own standpoint, studying the actuality (Wang & Luo, 2007; Li &

Tian, 2012), influence factors of their social integration (Liu & Zhou, 2004; Li, Ren and

Jin, 2008; Ren & Qiao, 2010) and measures to promote the integration (Hu, 2007; Jin,

2010). However, literatures which analyzed from the standpoint of the urban

residents and explored their attitude, evaluation and relationship between the

migrant workers are relatively scarce (Lu, 2006; Liu, 2008; Wang, 2010).

It is not reasonable to intentionally or unintentionally ignore the urban residents’

attitude. The migrant workers’ social integration is not a problem of their own. As the

capacity of the city is limited, numerous migrant workers’ appearance must have

great effect on urban residents’ work and life. Thus it is very important to study the

attitude towards migrant workers of urban residents. On one hand, the attitude of

urban residents will influence directly the migrant workers psychological experiences

and feelings, and then influence the relations between the two groups. By

researching some cases of migrant workers, Li (1995) found that migrant workers

were discontented with urban residents. They always felt discriminated and thought

that the feeling of discrimination is the reason why conflict happened between them

and urban residents. Zhu (2001) thought that urban residents had bias and

discrimination when they interacted with migrant workers. This kind of attitude was

easy to trigger the migrant workers’ dislike and then lead to the conflict between

groups. And on the other hand, the attitude of urban residents will influence the

formulation and execution of related policies and institutions. Liu (2008) used the

new institutionalism theory and pointed out that, although the requirement, wishes,

attitude and ideas of the ordinary people were not brought into the Chinese political

institution and decision-making process, these things will appear by tortuous ways in

policies and institutions, and it may be the support of existing institutions and

obstacle of institutional reformation. Thus we cannot ignore the social psychological

impact on the urban residents. Studying the attitude towards migrant workers of

urban residents, eliminating their bias and discrimination and promoting the friendly

interaction between the two groups is helpful for migrant workers to integrate into

the city favorably. And it is helpful to promote China’s healthy urbanization and social

development.

Therefore, the aim of this research is to discover the general evaluation and attitude

of urban citizens for migrant workers, and explore the influence factors of urban

citizens’ attitude.

Literature Review and Research Hypothesis

Urban Citizens’ Attitude towards Migrant Workers

At present, the domestic studies of urban citizens’ attitude towards migrant workers

mainly focused in the field of sociology. They can be divided into two types: one is

the description of citizens’ general attitude and evaluation, and another one is the

analysis of influence factors.

In terms of the urban citizens’ general attitude towards migrant workers, previous

studies mainly pointed out that, urban citizens’ attitude is contradictory and passive.

Their evaluation for migrant workers is negative. Lu Guoxian (2006) divided the urban

citizens’ attitude into bias and sympathy. According to the study of 211 Beijing

citizens, he found that there are nearly 70% of the citizens who agreed that migrant

workers disrupt the public security and damage the environment of the city. Zhang

Xuejun (2008) suggested that there are obvious psychological estrangement and

emotional distance between the urban citizens and migrant workers. Urban citizens

basically recognized the migrant workers’ institutional identity and supported that

migrant workers’ rights should be restricted.

In recent years, the concept, social distance, is used to analyze the relationship

between the urban citizens and migrant workers. Wang Yijie and Wang Kaiqing

(2008) formulated two scales to measure the social distance between the Nanjing

citizens and migrant workers. They found that the social distance between these two

groups is asymmetric, that is, the social distance from the urban citizens to the

migrant workers is longer than social distance which migrant workers perceived. Tang

Youcai and Fu Ping (2012) considered that the social distance between the urban

citizens and migrant workers is relatively long. Most of the urban citizens would like

to remain the general social relations with migrant workers instead of close social

relations such as kinship.

For the influence factors of urban citizens’ attitude towards migrant workers, the

existing studies focused on the urban citizens’ individual characteristics (gender,

education level, occupational identity, income, the characteristic of workplace, social

class and so on), social capital, the interaction with migrant workers and the city’s

own features.

The study of Zhang Xuejun (2008) showed that, the income, occupational identity

and social class had the significant effect on the urban citizens’ attitude. Those who

have the higher income, higher occupational identity and higher social class are more

likely to sympathize and tolerate the migrant workers. Liu Linping (2008) suggested

that the interaction with migrant workers had the decisive influence on urban

citizens’ attitude. The evaluation of those citizens who interacted with migrant

workers in the daily life is more positive than evaluation of those who do not have

this experience. Based on the data of China General Social Survey of 2005, Wang

Jiashun (2010) indicated that those people who lived in the city which has many

registered population, pressured public products supplement and high-level public

products service are less likely to agree migrant workers to settle down. Wang Guixin

and Wu Junkui (2011) analyzed the survey data of Shanghai and found that social

capital is a key role of urban citizens’ interaction with migrant workers. If there isn’t

any migrant workers in one citizen’s social network, the probability they would like to

make friend with migrant workers is only 70% of those who have migrant workers in

their network. Hu Rong and Wang Xiao (2012) thought that the variability of urban

citizens’ social network has the negative influence on their social distance to the

migrant workers, that is, the more resources a citizens has, the shorter the social

distance is.

Existing studies emphasized the function of urban citizens’ interaction with migrant

workers and their social capital which inspired me to think about the urban citizens’

social participation. At present, the existence of large amounts of migrant workers is

a very common phenomenon in Chinese urban citizens’ daily life. They may interact

with them in every aspect of life. In addition, I have visited Nanjing Community

Development Center for Facilitators in November 2011, and found that they have

achieved good results in the area which promotes migrant workers integrate into the

community. When they held various activities, they always advocate full participate

of community residents and migrant population. This experience also enlightened

me. Urban residents and migrant workers may interact, communicate and

understand with each other according to the wide social participation.

Social Participation as the Influence Factors

Although social participation is a standing focus in the research field of

politics ， education and sociology, the definition of this concept has been

controversial. As Teele (1965) pointed out that one of the defects of the present

studies of social participation was failure to conceptualize.

Queen (1941) thought that this concept was made to include membership and

activity in social groups, sharing in a culture through various media of

communication and engaging in "expressional" activities, and "acceptance" by other

individuals. Teele (1965) put forward three standards to measure the social

participation on the basis of previous studies: voluntariness, formalism and planned-

unplanned. Each of them could be regarded as a separate continuum and they

covered the present indicators. Van (2008) divided social participation into four

kinds, including: formal involvement in associations, maintenance of informal

contacts within the home and outside the home, and distant social contacts.

In some domestic studies, the definition of social participation is not so clear

although it is used widely. It seems to have been regarded as a conventional concept

and refers to “a process which members of the society act as some social roles,

participate and intervene in the country’s political, economic and cultural life and

public affairs of the community so that they can communicate with others and

influence the social development” (Wang, 2012).

Based on the previous studies and the characteristic of my own survey data, I

grouped the social participation of Chinese urban residents into four levels,

including:

a. Individual level: mainly refers to the individual’s interpersonal communication,

such as the number of friends.

b. Employment level: mainly refers to that if individuals have a permanent job or

not.

c. Social group/organization level: individuals involved in various social

organizations or not.

d. Community level: including the years lived in the community and community

election participation.

The feeling of social distance may be influenced by the social participation. Xu

Chuanxin and Xu Ruolan (2008) measured 576 new generation of migrant workers’

social participation in Chengdu with two indicators: one is the community

organization participation, another one is the frequency of community activity

participation. They found that the status of migrant workers’ community

participation had the positive effect on their social distance to the urban residents.

Compared to those who did not take part in the community organizations, those who

participated the community organizations had better interaction with urban citizens.

If the frequency they took part in the community activities is higher, their feelings of

social distance from urban citizens are weaker. On the contrary, Hu Rong and Wang

Xiao (2012) indicated that mass organization participation, such as religious gathering

and reality management meeting, do not have the statistical significance for the

social distance from urban citizens to migrant workers.

Actually, studies about the influence of urban citizens’ social participation on their

social distance to the migrant workers are relatively less. And the results of those

studies are inconsistent. Based on the existing studies, I hypothesized that the four

levels of urban residents’ social participation influenced their attitude and evaluation

towards migrant workers. I will explore their relations with regression model in the

next space.

Method

Research Design

Questionnaire survey was conducted in Nanjing (2012) and Zhangjiagang (2013) to

measure the urban citizens’ evaluation and attitude towards migrant workers. There

are more than millions of migrant workers lived and worked here which accounted

seventh of the total population of Nanjing. The total number of the migrant workers

lived in Zhangjiagang is more than 66000 accounting for about 40% of its total

population.

Sampling

Multistage sampling was used in these two surveys. The sampling design was based

on the data of the 2010 census and statistical yearbook of Nanjing and Zhangjiagang.

Firstly, the number of questionnaires that should be sent in each county and district

was determined by the ratio of county and district’s population and total population.

Then we extracted a certain number of communities according to the ratio of the

communities and neighborhood committees randomly. After that we finally select

our survey object by random sampling in the selected communities and

neighborhood committees according to the population ratio. As the household

survey is used by us, so when we selected one person, we would select another four

person who lived around him as an alternative for fear of the selected person is not

at home. In addition, we had a special control on the sex and the type of the

professions of the survey objects. These two investigations were coordinated well by

the local governments, so the replacement ratio of the sample is low.

Data Collection

Structured interview was adopted during the survey in order to reduce the missing

value and ensure the completion rate. Investigators asked questions with a standard

questionnaire and then migrant workers answered. Questionnaires were filled in by

investigators. The investigators were the students from Nanjing University, Hehai

University and Nanjing Normal University and they took part in the professional

training before the survey.

According to these two surveys, we obtained 479 responses of Nanjing citizens and

302 samples of Zhangjiagang.

Urban Residents’ Evaluation of Migrant Workers

There are 11 statements in our questionnaires to investigate the evaluation of urban

citizens to migrant peasant workers:

1 Migrant workers provided convenience for citizens’ life;

2 Migrant workers provided cheap services and reduce the cost of citizens’ life;

3 Migrant workers increased the consumption of city and stimulate the market;

4 The economic development of cities cannot be separated from migrant

workers’ endeavor;

5 Migrant workers’ tasks were dirty, heavy and dangerous which citizens would

not to do;

6 Migrant workers led to an increase in criminal phenomenon;

7 Migrant workers affected the environment and appearance of the city;

8 Migrant workers competed with citizens for jobs;

9 Migrant workers exacerbated traffic congestion;

10 Migrant workers sold fakes and disrupted the market order;

11 Migrant workers corrupted the social atmosphere of the city.

The statements 1-5 are positive evaluation of migrant peasant workers while the

statements 6-11 are negative evaluation.

At the same time, we assigned values to each question. The statements 1-5 are the

positive evaluation of migrant workers, we assigned 1-5 points to five options. The

score is higher means that the evaluation is better. The statements 6-11 are the

negative evaluation, thus we assigned the options 5-1 points. So we can obtain the

scores of 11 statements below.

Table 1 ： Evaluation of Migrant Workers of Urban Citizens of Nanjing and

Zhangjigang

Percent（%）MeanStrongly

DisagreeSomewhatDisagree

NeutralSomewhat

AgreeStrongly

Agree1 0.855 3.975 17.515 45.015 32.64 4.0452 2.565 13.665 21.135 39.64 22.995 3.673 1.38 8.41 25.395 39.9 24.915 3.7854 0.965 2.125 9.665 40.88 46.365 4.35 1.335 6.31 11.235 34.255 46.865 4.196 12.035 26.805 29.75 25.265 6.145 3.135

7 14.265 29.265 28.36 21.91 6.2 3.2358 21.465 38.51 24.775 11.455 3.795 3.6259 18.985 33.55 27.95 15.565 3.95 3.485

10 16.79 29.015 28.105 19.275 6.815 3.29511 26.365 34.155 26.125 9.305 4.05 3.68

TotalAverage

3.675

For the positive statements, we can find that urban citizens of Nanjing and

Zhangjiagang approved “migrant workers’ tasks were dirty, heavy and dangerous

which citizens would not to do”, “the economic development of cities cannot be

separated from migrant workers’ endeavor” and “migrant workers provided

convenience for citizens’ life” mostly from the graph above. Their rating were at least

4 points and there are nearly or more than 80% citizens chose “somewhat agree”

and “strongly agree”. The scores of statements “migrant workers provided cheap

services and reduce the cost of citizens’ life” and “migrant workers increased the

consumption of city and stimulate the market” tend to 4. More than 60% of the

respondents agreed these two statements.

For the negative statements, there are more than six probitates of respondents chose

“strongly disagree” or “somewhat disagree” for the 11th statement. Besides, urban

citizens didn’t agree with these two statements: “migrant workers competed with

citizens for jobs” and “migrant workers exacerbated traffic congestion”. It is worth

noting that there are still more than thirty percent of the respondents agreed the

statements “migrant workers led to an increase in criminal phenomenon” and nearly

25% of the respondents agreed “migrant workers sold fakes and disrupted the

market order”. In a word, scores of Nanjing and Zhangjiagang citizens’ negative

statements about migrant workers are relatively lower, and the overall average score

of the 11 statements above is 3.675 which means that the evaluation of citizens

towards migrant workers is above average, between the neutrality and positivity.

We also have 9 statements about the rights and interests of migrant workers listed in

the questionnaires so as to obtain the level of agreement of citizens:

12 Migrant workers should have equal employment opportunity with local

citizens;

13 Migrant workers should have equal unemployment benefits with local

citizens;

14 Migrant workers should have equal pension insurance with local citizens;

15 Migrant workers should have equal medical insurance with local citizens;

16 Migrant workers should have equal subsistence allowance with local citizens

17 The children of migrant workers have rights to receive equal compulsory

education with the children of local citizens;

18 Migrant workers should have equal rights to lease the low-cost housing

provided by the government;

19 Migrant workers should have rights to take part in the election of

neighborhood committees in current residence;

20 Migrant workers have rights to participate in the election of National People’s

Congress in cities;

We also assigned values for Table 5. “Strongly agree” was assigned 5 points, and

“strongly disagree” was assigned 1 points in descending order. For results, see Table

6.

Table 2 Public views of Urban Citizens of Nanjing and Zhangjiagang for Migrant Workers Enjoy the Equal Rights and Interests with Themselves

Percent（%）MeanStrongly

AgreeSomewhat

AgreeNeutral

Somewhatdisagree

StronglyDisagree

12 41.675 39.485 13.905 4.31 0.625 4.1713 37.07 35.865 18.26 7.145 1.67 3.99514 38.74 41.105 15.545 3.215 1.395 4.12515 40.85 42.61 13.37 2.17 1.00 4.2016 32.285 29.985 21.535 13.395 2.80 3.75517 52.985 34.955 9.49 1.67 0.90 4.475

18 37.98 34.9 19.42 5.565 2.135 4.0119 30.4 28.265 24.8 13.115 3.42 3.6920 28.915 29.08 25.945 11.83 4.23 3.665

TotalAverage

4.01

Should migrant workers have equal rights in jobs, pensions, health care, education,

election and other aspects of city life with urban residents? We can find that the

urban citizens of Nanjing and Zhangjiagang have a positive attitude towards this from

the graph above. The overall average score of the 9 statements above is 4.01 which is

between the “somewhat agree” and “strongly agree”.

Respondents agreed statement “the children of migrant workers have rights to

receive equal compulsory education with the children of local citizens” mostly. There

are only 2.57% of respondents “somewhat disagree” or “strongly disagree” this

statement. There are more than 80% citizens “somewhat agree” or “strongly agree”

that “migrant workers should have equal employment opportunity with local

citizens” and “migrant workers should have equal pension insurance and medical

insurance with local citizens”. Nearly 80% of citizens “somewhat agree” and “strongly

agree” that “migrant workers should have equal pension insurance with local

citizens”. Scores of the ninth, fifth and eighth statement (“migrant workers have

rights to participate in the election of National People’s Congress in cities”, “migrant

workers should have equal subsistence allowance with local citizens”, “migrant

workers should have rights to take part in the election of neighborhood committees

in current residence”) are lower than 4 point which are between “neutralism” and

“somewhat agree”. Specially the statement “migrant workers have rights to

participate in the election of National People’s Congress in cities”, more than 15% of

citizens denied it.

Do migrant workers have rights to settle down in the city? We set up such a question

in questionnaire: “Are you in favor of migrant workers settling in city?” Three options

are provided: unconditional support, conditional support and disapproval.

Table 3 Urban Citizens’ Opinions about Migrant Workers Settling Down in City

N=771Frequency Percentage

Unconditionally Support 420 54.47Conditionally Support 272 35.28Disapproval 79 10.25

More than half of the respondents supported that migrant workers can settle in cities

unconditionally. The number of urban citizens of Nanjing and Zhangjiagang who

supported this opinion conditionally is 35.28%. Conditions they put forward generally

included: (migrant workers) should worked in cities for several years, have certain

economic ability, make contribution to the local development, purchase some

housing estates, observe discipline and obey laws, etc. There are only 10.25% of

respondents disagreed that migrant workers settle down in the city.

Based on the analysis above, we can find that urban residents’ attitude towards

migrant workers is relatively positive and tolerant. Their evaluation for migrant

workers is in middle or upper level. They basically supported that migrant workers

should enjoy the equal rights and interests with urban citizens. And most of them

endorsed that migrant workers have the right to settle down in cities. This result is

quite different from the researches of Liu (2008), Ye, Jiang and Qian (2011). Liu

studied the citizens with city hukou of old town in Guangzhou in 2006 and found that

their evaluation for migrant workers is in lower level. The total average score is 2.86

which is lower than 3.675 in this study as we used the same marking method. Ye and

his colleague survived urban citizens in Hangzhou in 2010, discovered that their

general impression for migrant workers is negative. There are still a quantity of

separation and conflict between urban citizens and migrant workers. It may take

more time for those two groups to integrate with each other. So, what influence the

urban citizens’ attitude towards migrant workers? Next, I will explore the influence

factors of citizens’ attitude and evaluation by building regression models based on

the hypothesis about social participation mentioned above.

Social Participation as the Influence Factors

Disposal of the Dependent Variables

There are two groups of questions in the questionnaire aimed at evaluating the

urban residents’ attitude towards migrant workers. The first group is to ask the urban

citizens’ agreement level of eleven statements about migrant workers. And the

second group is to discover the urban citizens’ attitude of migrant workers should

have equal rights with them or not. Therefore, we adopted the principle component

factors analysis to transform this series of related variables into a few potential

dimensions.

For the first group questions, we can find that there are only two factors of which the

eigenvalue is more than 1 according to the principle component factors analysis.

Meanwhile, these two factors explained 56.14% of the intraclass variance of 11

variables which indicated that the third to the eleventh factors can be omitted in the

next analysis.

Table 4 Structure of Factor 1 and Factor 2

Factor Variance Difference Proportion CumulativeFactor 1 3.41005 0.64444 0.3100 0.3100Factor 2 2.76561 . 0.2514 0.5614

Then I set up the factor score, as shown in the following table:

Table 5 Factor Score

Variables Factor 1 Factor 21 0.00862 0.29067

2 0.00424 0.242863 0.05895 0.295514 0.04398 0.284775 0.04025 0.249976 0.22769 0.048707 0.24084 0.050368 0.18735 0.049349 0.23789 0.03830

10 0.23300 0.0048911 0.21925 -0.01687

Thus we finally got two factors. Factor 1 was named “negative evaluation” and factor

2 was “positive evaluation”.

The second group questions was disposed in the same way. And we got only one

factor named “equal rights”.

Disposal of the Independent Variables

The main independent variables which involved in the analysis model included the

respondents’ demographic variables and social participation variables. As the control

variable, the demographic variables contained gender, age, education level, marriage

and health status. The social participation variables mainly included the number of

friends, employment status, social group participation, social organization

participation, years lived in specific community and community election

participation. The selection of the social participation variables was matched with

social participation’s five levels in the research hypothesis. The basic information of

the independent variables included in the model is shown in following table:

Table 6 Independent Variables

Independent

Variables

Values Mean Value

(Standard

Frequency

Deviation)

Gender0：Female

1：Male

0：49.42%

1：50.58%

Age Unit：years old43.825

（13.46）

Education Level

0：High school or below

1：Technical Secondary

School and Junior College

2：Bachelor degree or above

0：61.13%

1：25.54%

2：13.33%

Marriage

0：Unmarried

1：Married

2：Divorced or widowed

0：8.94%

1：86.73%

2：4.33%

Health

Status

0：Unhealthy

1：Healthy

0：31.09%

1：68.91%

Number of Friends15.71

（40.09）Employment

Status

0：No

1：Yes

0：29.26%

1：70.74%

Social Group

Participation

0：None

1：Voluntary Groups

2：Identity Groups

0：70.20%

1：11.54%

2：18.26%

Social Organization

Participation

0：None

1：Communist Party

2：Others (Labor Union,

Women’s Federation and so

on)

0：55.05%

1：17.07%

2：27.88%

Years Lived in

CommunityUnit：Year

20.95

(17.64)

Community Election0：No

1：Yes

0：23.79%

1：76.21%

Results of the Analysis Model

As the principle component factor analysis was adopted, the disposed dependent

variables were continuous variables. Thus I chose the multiple linear regression

model. After including the disposed independent variables in the model, we got

three models about urban citizens’ attitude towards migrant workers in Nanjing and

Zhangjiagang. Models are shown in following table:

Table 7 Multiple Liner Regression Analysis of Urban Residents’ attitude towards

Migrant Workers in Nanjing and Zhangjiagang

IndependentVariables

NegativeEvaluation

PositiveEvaluation

EqualRights

RegressionCoefficient

StandardError

RegressionCoefficient

StandardError

RegressionCoefficient

StandardError

Gender(Female=0)

.2567 .2339 .1872 .1953 .2276* .0879

Age -.1035 .0862 -.2283** .0954 -.0002 .0739

Education Level（High school or below=0）Technical Secondary School and Junior College

-.1971** .2829 .0478 .2649 .5572* .3964

Bachelor degree or above

-.4875* .6892 .6271 .4389 .7736** .0821

Marriage(Unmarried=0)Married .2635 .3872 -.4179 .0988 .0071 .4839Divorced or widowed

-.2819 .6473 -.6521 .7391 .4076 .6662

Health（Unhealthy=0）

-.2189 .3376 .0992 .4730 .1098 .2135

Number of friends

.0021 .0018 .0033 .0052 .0009 .0041

Employment（No=0） .3387 .2553 -.0992 .2673 -.3781 .2973

Years lived in the community

.1892* .0939 -.0102 .0063 -.0283 .0198

Community Election（No=0） .2887 .1934 .0982 .0761 .3992** .0182

Social Group Participation（None=0）Voluntary Groups -.0908** .0762 .0473* .0981 .2777** .3102Identity Groups .4109 .2761 -.2992 .3890 -.0872 .5338

Social Organization Participation（None=0）Communist Party .1924 .1803 .1154** .0723 .8871* .0866Others .4562 .1908 .1987 .2457 .2692* .0915Constant Term -.5887 .3197 .6843 .6271 .3992 .6733Adjusted- R² 0.2118 0.1789 0.2352

** p<0.01, * p<0.05

As can be seen from the table above, the education level, years lived in the

community and voluntary group participation are the significant factors which

influenced the urban’ residents negative evaluation for the migrant workers. Age and

Communist Party participation had an effect on their positive evaluation. Besides, the

gender, education level, the community election participation, voluntary groups

participation and social organization participation are the influence factors of urban

residents’ agreement of migrant workers’ equal rights. To be specific, among the

control variables, gender had the positive effect on the third factor. Compared to the

female, male citizens are more likely to support that migrant workers should have

equal rights with urban citizens. The influence of age on urban citizens’ positive

evaluation is negative. The possibility of evaluating the migrant workers positively

will diminish if people’s age grow. The education level influence the urban citizens’

attitude towards migrant workers significantly. The respondents whose education

background are technical secondary school, junior college, bachelor degree or above

are less likely to evaluate the migrant workers negatively compared to those people

whose education level are high school or below. Similarly, they are more likely to

agree that migrant workers should enjoy the equal rights with urban citizens. One

possible explanation is, the migrant workers may have the competitive relations with

those urban citizens whose education background is lower in the labor market. The

existence of large amounts of migrant workers may extrude the employment space

and take up a part of resources or those ill-educated urban citizens. The marriage

and health status do not have effect on the urban citizens’ attitude towards migrant

workers.

Among the explanatory variables, firstly, years lived in the community had the

positive influence on the urban citizens’ negative evaluation for migrant workers.

Citizens lived in a specific community longer, they are more likely to give the negative

evaluation. It is probably because that, the citizens lived in a community longer, the

possibility they have the rub or conflict in the life with migrant workers is larger.

Secondly, citizens who participated in the community election felt more supportive

of migrant workers’ equal rights compared to those who do not have this experience.

This may be related to the existing policies of migrant workers. Some Opinions of

Solving the Migrant Workers’ Problem of the State Council indicated that the

community should be one of the important approaches to serve and manage the

migrant workers. We supposed that those urban citizens who took part in the

community election may know the policies better. The voluntary groups participation

had the positive effect on the urban citizens’ attitude. Compared to those who do not

take part in any social groups, respondents who are the member of voluntary groups

are less likely to evaluate the migrant workers negatively and more likely to support

them have equal rights in the city. Social organization participation also positively

influenced the urban citizens’ attitude towards migrant workers. Based on the

analysis result, we can find that the member of the Communist Party would rather to

evaluate the migrant workers positively and they also agree that migrant workers

should have equal rights in the city. In addition, those who participated in the

democratic parties or other social organizations supported migrant workers’ equal

rights compared to those who do not take part in any social organizations.

From the analysis above, we can find that some hypotheses are supported by the

empirical data preliminarily. The influence of years lived in community, community

election participation and social group/organization participation is verified according

to the regression model. However, the internal mechanism between urban citizens’

attitude and their attitude towards migrant workers is not covered in this research as

the data is limited.

Conclusion and Discussion

We delightedly found that the attitude of urban residents in Zhangjiagang and

Nanjing towards migrant workers is relatively tolerant and open compared to those

existing studies. And most of them agreed that migrant workers should have equal

rights on children’s compulsory education, employment, medical insurance,

endowment insurance and other rights with urban residents. Quite a few residents

supported that migrant workers have the right to settle down in the city. However, it

is still worthy of noting that, the attitude towards migrant workers of urban residents

is not coincident but contradictory. On the one hand, they objectively and rationally

noticed that migrant workers made great contribution to the economic construction

and social development. They recognized that migrant workers’ tasks are dirty, heavy

and dangerous which citizens would not like to do. On the other hand, the citizens

subjectively and emotionally judge that migrant workers affected the environment

and appearance of the city and led to an increase in crime. On the one hand, they

support that migrant workers should have equal rights on children’s compulsory

education, medical insurance, employment and so on. On the other hand, they do

not agree that migrant workers equally rent the low-rent house provided by the

government, have the basic cost of living allowances and take part in the community

election and the election of People’s Congress in the city.

The existence of the differences and contradiction is normal. The longtime urban-

rural dual structure in China lead to two different benefit clusters: urban residents

and country folk. This basic institution has been internalized a kind of common social

psychology. But this had been shocked greatly by the booming market economy and

incident social reformation. We can found from this research that the urban

residents gradually change their negative attitude towards migrant workers and

begin to accept and respect them.

In order to promote the reformation of the dual structure, facilitate China’s healthy

urbanization and solve the surplus labors problem in rural areas at the same time, we

should let those migrant workers who worked, lived and developed in city integrate

into the city smoothly. This process is not the migrant workers’ own effort, it also

includes the urban residents’ acceptance. This research shows that social group and

social organization participation influence urban residents’ attitude. Maybe this is a

breakout for us to promote the urban residents give up bias and regard the migrant

workers as the equal members of urban society.

Based on the analysis of survey data from Nanjing and Zhangjiagang, we preliminary

confirmed that some kinds of social participation do have effect on urban residents’

attitude towards migrant workers. Whereas, the relation between them is very

complex. This research cannot able to cover more influence mechanism. Maybe

there are some mediating or moderating variables between the social participation

and urban residents’ attitude. The factors which did not be fully considered in this

research should be examined by larger and more focused research.

References:

Queen, S. A. (1941). The Concepts Social Disorganization and Social Participation. American

Sociological Review, 6(3), 307-319.

Teele, J. E. (1965). An appraisal of research on social participation. The Sociological Quarterly,

6(3), 257-267.

Van Ingen, E. (2008). Social Participation Revisited Disentangling and Explaining Period, Life-Cycle

and Cohort Effects. Acta Sociologica, 51(2), 103-121.

胡杰成. (2007). 社会排斥与农民工的城市融入问题. 兰州学刊, 7, 87-90.

胡荣, & 李静雅. (2006). 城市居民信任的构成及影响因素. 社会, 26(6), 45-61.

金萍. (2010). 新生代农民工城市融入现状分析及对策研究 [J]. 学习与探索, 4.

李培林, & 田丰. (2012). 中国农民工社会融入的代际比较. 社会, 5, 20-24.

李树茁, 任义科, & 靳小怡. (2008). 中国农民工的社会融合及其影响因素研究——基于社会支持网络的分析. 人口与经济, (2), 1-8.

李强. (1995). 关于城市农民工的情绪倾向及社会冲突问题. 社会学研究, 4, 42-49.

李强. (1999). 中国大陆城市农民工的职业流动. 社会学研究, 3, 93-101.

刘传江, & 周玲. (2004). 社会资本与农民工的城市融合. 人口研究, 5, 12-18.

刘建娥. (2010). 乡-城移民 (农民工) 社会融入的实证研究——基于五大城市的调查. 人口研究,

34(4), 62-75.

刘林平. (2008). 交往与态度: 城市居民眼中的农民工——对广州市民的问卷调查 . 中山大学学报 (社会科学版), 2, 023.

卢国显. (2006). 我国大城市农民工与市民社会距离的实证研究 . 中国人民公安大学学报: 社会科学版, 22(4), 95-104.

任远, & 乔楠. (2010). 城市流动人口社会融合的过程, 测量及影响因素. 人口研究, 2, 11-20.

孙鹃娟 . (2008). 北京市老年人精神生活满意度和幸福感及其影响因素 . 中国老年学杂志 ,

28(3), 308-310.

孙永正. (2006). 农民工工作满意度实证分析. 中国农村经济, (1), 42-48.

王兵. 当代中国人的社会参与研究述评[J]. 哈尔滨工业大学学报 (社会科学版), 2012, 6: 006.

王春光. (2004). 农民工的国民待遇与社会公正问题. Journal of Sociology, 44, 1.

王桂新, & 罗恩立. (2007). 上海市外来农民工社会融合现状调查研究. 华东理工大学学报: 社会科学版, 22(3), 97-104.

王桂新, 沈建法, & 刘建波. (2008). 中国城市农民工市民化研究. 人口与发展, 1.

王嘉顺. (2010). 区域差异背景下的城市居民对外来人口迁入的态度研究. 社会, 6.

许传新, & 许若兰. (2008). 新生代农民工与城市居民社会距离实证研究. 人口与经济, (5).

杨菊华 . (2009). 从隔离 , 选择融入到融合 : 流动人口社会融入问题的理论思考 .人口研究 ,

33(1), 17-29.

叶俊焘, 蒋剑勇, & 钱文荣. (2011). 城市居民对进城农民工态度的影响因素研究. 浙江社会科学, (10).

张文宏, & 雷开春. (2008). 城市新移民社会融合的结构, 现状与影响因素分析.社会学研究, 5,

117-141.

朱力. (2001). 群体性偏见与歧视--农民工与市民的磨擦性互动. 江海学刊, (6), 48-53.

朱力. (2002). 论农民工阶层的城市适应. 江海学刊, (6), 82-88.